Yep... it always ends the same way! Pure assertion and not even the intellectual integrity to respond to honest attempts to clarify contradictory statements. I had said 'thread closed', but I realized that this wasn't one of your threads. Oddly, I had used the word 'we' just before you asked for the links. When I pointed out that the thread was the one we were having this exchange in, you changed your story to 'I don't respond when I see the phrase "we"'. If that was the case, why did you ask for the links?? Curiouser and curiouser. Very hard to follow your logic tonight, Z, especially in terms of your comments to nitro. It's always easy to own you, in terms of tearing apart your posts, but this was a little too easy! Maybe a little tipsy?
An ET moderator? No man... I'm just your personal moderator . Because if there's anything you are, its immoderate. And, as evidenced by the fact that you just contradicted yourself in this thread and then used my use of the wrong pronoun as an excuse to avoid clarifying your contradictions, intellectually dishonest as well. But that has been shown many, many times in various threads. btw... have you ever been banned from ET under your current username or any other?
Oh...so you closed the thread, now you reopen up the thread? Bwaaaahaaahaaaaa.... You think you are my personal moderator? I call it a case of you personally stalking me....
I can't close threads, Z... I'm not a mod!! I'm just one of your personal moderators, Z. There are many others here. Let's face it... in this very thread you contradicted yourself. I pointed it out and at first, in a bizarre twist, you asked me to provide you with a link (to this very thread??). I did so, even though it seemed a bit strange. Then instead of addressing the contradictions, you said you don't respond to requests with the word 'we' in them. Let's examine that. There are at least 5 other members in this very thread who have expressed varying degrees of disagreement and puzzlement re: your posts, not in some other thread, but in this thread itself. So there are clearly others who are looking for clarifications from you. If I am referring to myself and all these others, is it not natural to use the word 'we'? In fact, isn't your citation of my use of the word 'we' just an excuse? Aren't you simply avoiding answering the questions engendered by the contradictory statements in this thread? We will always be... awaiting your response. And you know what? If you ever decide to give one, I bet you would be surprised at how forgiving people are! Nik PS - oh man, this was one of the easiest ones ever - it took less than 6 posts!!
Hmmm.. let's examine that charge. How many posts have I made in response to your posts in the past, let's say 4 weeks? You make an average of about 18 posts a day (last time I made the calculation, even though I still think your post counting s/w is busted). So in 4 weeks let's say 504 posts (!!!!!). How many of those have I responded to? How many responses would put me in 'stalking' territory? I would welcome the input of one of the mods on this - if my responses to your posts are interpreted as 'stalking', I would be happy to desist. In this thread, I have made about 6 posts to you, but most of them were specifically asking for clarifications of the contradictions in your posts in this very thread. In fact, I would guess that there are other member here who respond directly to your posts a lot more than I do. So do you really think I am stalking you? Or is it that you need a distraction, something to draw attention away from the fact that I have given direct quotes of contradictory statements you have made in this thread, and that you are unable to give clarifications, because no clarifications are possible? I feel that this is a prelude to one of your fallback tactics - the charge of TOU violations. Do you recall that when the going got tough in the ID thread, you started to call everyone 'stupid' and telling everyone that their posts constituted TOU violations? Interestingly, no one in that thread was ever banned or even censured for their actions. Thanks for any further comments.
I can't close threads, Z... I'm not a mod!! So this was a case of intellectual dishonesty, when you said "thread closed": Quote from traderNik: Yep... it always ends the same way! Pure assertion and not even the intellectual integrity to respond to honest attempts to clarify contradictory statements. thread closed I'm just one of your personal moderators, Z. There are many others here. You are a stalker, there are other stalkers. Yes, we know.... Let's face it... in this very thread you contradicted yourself. I pointed it out and at first, in a bizarre twist, you asked me to provide you with a link (to this very thread??). I asked for links to your claims, yes. That's part of the process of making an argument, demostrating proof of your claims..... I did so, even though it seemed a bit strange. You made multiple claims, for which you did not provide links.... Then instead of addressing the contradictions, you said you don't respond to requests with the word 'we' in them. I don't agree with your assessment of contradictions. Let's examine that. There are at least 5 other members in this very thread who have expresses varying degrees of disagreement and puzzlement at your posts, not in some other thread, but in this thread itself. So there are clearly others who are looking for clarifications from you. If I am referring to myself and all these others, is it not natural to use the word 'we'? Five other right wing Bush supporters chime in. So? Nitro and I had a pleasant discussion, civil, full of differences of opinions without engaging in the typical flame war stuff.... In fact, isn't your citation of my use of the word 'we' just an excuse? Nope. Unless there was a vote, and you were elected to speak for some group, you are not "we" nor a representative of "we." I also assume you are not the queen of England, who speaks as "we" all the time... LMAO... Aren't you simply avoiding answering the questions engendered by the contradictory statements in this thread? You ask lots of stupid questions, I usually avoid answering them.... We will always be... awaiting your response. And you know what? If you ever decide to give one, I bet you would be surprised at how forgiving people are! "We will...." The queen speaks....
You persistently follow me around like some beaten pupply looking for love. That is stalking in my estimation....
Naw... that was just a joke, Z. Intellectual dishonesty is when, for example, you start threads whose titles distort news items in order to promote your personal agendum, like this http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1049792#post1049792 If you look in the dictionary under 'intellectual dishonesty', you will find this thread cited. I could provide other examples from your discography, but everyone is aware of them by now. Anyway, we can compare that to your joke, at least the thing you claimed was a joke - that's when you suggested that a fellow ET member should have it suggested to him that his kids might be the targets of pedophilic attacks. Both jokes, Z... although there seems to be some sort of difference there. I would leave it to others to characterize the difference between your jokes and mine. No links were necessary - the claims were based on comments made in this very thread. This is only the 5th time I have pointed this out!!! Again... the statements I was questioning were from this thread. Yes, I brought up your unaddressed contradictions from other threads too, but then I said this So I gave you a break (again) and said let's just deal with the comments in this thread. So that argument is shot down. Oh no? What part of this don't you see as contradiction? Don't you just HATE the archives, Z?